Abstract
For scholars, as for the leaders of colonial empires and anti-colonial activists, the period of decolonization was a moment of uncertainty. It was no longer politically possible to divide the world between advanced and primitive beings. Africa would no longer remain the exclusive domain of anthropologists, and anthropologists would be obliged to rethink what distinguished their domain of research. Historians of empire — whose job it had been to make known the accomplishments of whites in regions otherwise without history — were increasingly marginalized or obliged to convert themselves into historians of Africa or Asia. Sociologists, economists, and political scientists, for whom colonized territories had previously held little interest, saw opening before them a new world to discover — and a lack of theory with which to analyse it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For two examples of rejections of development thinking, see A. Escobar, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1995
and W. Sachs, ed., The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, London, Zed, 1992.
Different points of view on the development question are evaluated in F. Cooper and R. Packard, eds, International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays in the History and Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1997.
For the example of medicine and sanitation, see J. P. Bado, Médecine coloniale et grandes endémies en Afrique 1900–1960: Lèpre, trypanosomiase humaine et onchocercose, Paris, Karthala, 1996,
and M. Vaughan, Curing their Ills: Colonial Power and African Illness, Cambridge, Polity, 1991.
The periodization of French and British colonial policy remains a subject of debate. For the sequence of interventionist approaches before the First World War followed by a more conservative approach oriented towards ethnic units, I am following my own work on the history of development (cited above). See A. Phillips, The Enigma of Colonialism: British Policy in West Africa, London, Currey 1989,
and A. Conklin, A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in Trance and West Africa, 1895–1930, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, 1998.
See also C. Coquery-Vidrovitch, ‘La mise en dépendance de l’Afrique Noire: Essai de périodisation, 1800–1970’, Cahiers d’Études Africaines 16, 1976, pp. 5–58.
A. Sarraut, La mise en valeur de l’Afrique Noire, Paris, Payot, 1923;
S. Constantine, The Making of British Colonial Development Policy 1914–1940, London, Frank Cass, 1984, pp. 44–56;
C. Cotte, ‘La politique économique de la France en Afrique Noire (1936–1946)’, unpublished doctoral thesis, Université Paris VII, 1981;
J, Marseille, Empire colonial et capitalisme français: Histoire d’un divorce, Paris, Albin Michel, 1984;
C. Coquery-Vidrovitch, D. Hémery and J. Piel, Pour une histoire du développement, Paris, l’Harmattan, 1988.
Frederick Lugard, a pioneer of colonization in East Africa in the 1890s, achieved lasting recognition as the ruler of northern Nigeria during the next decade, where he pioneered methods of working with indigenous authorities. He later codified his practices as ‘indirect rule’. See F. Lugard, Dual Mandate in Tropical Africa, London, Blackwood, 1922.
M. M. van Beusekom, Negotiating Development: African Tarmers and Colonial Experts at the Office du Niger, 1920–1960, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann, 2002.
Conklin, A Mission to Civilize, 1998.
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer, a Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People, Oxford, Clarendon, 1940.
See also the important re-examination of the Nuer in a deeper historical context by S. Hutchinson, Nuer Dilemmas: Coping with Money, War, and the State, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1996,
and, on British anthropology generally, the dissertation for the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales by B. de L’Estoile, L’Afrique comme laboratoire: Expériences réformatrices et révolution anthropologique dans l’empire colonial britannique (1920–1950), Paris, Éditions de l’ÉHÉSS, 2004.
Malinowski’s phrase is cited in G. Stocking, Jr, After Tylor: British Social Anthropology 1888–1951, Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press, pp 995, 412, which is an excellent starting place for a discussion of the overall issue. For the politicizing of Malinowskian anthropology, see J. Kenyatta, Pacing Mount Kenya: The Tribal Life of the Gikuyu, London, Seeker and Warburg, 1938.
H. A. L. Fisher to a meeting at Oxford, 1929, cited in H. Tilley, Africa as Living Laboratory: Empire, Development and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge, 1870–1950, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2011.
L. Hailey, An African Survey, London, Oxford University Press, 1938. The second edition, in 1945, was also timid on such issues as the labour question. See Tilley’s study of the entire project of which Hailey’s survey was a part.
On inter-war French ethnography, there is an important literature. See, for example, B. de L’Estoile, ‘Science de l’homme et ‘domination rationnelle’: Savoir ethnologique et politique indigène en Afrique coloniale française’, Revue de Synthèse 4, nos. 3–4, 2000, pp. 291–323;
E. Sibeud, Une science impériale pour l’Afrique? La construction des savoirs africanistes en Trance 1878–1930, Paris, Éditions de l’ÉHÉSS, 2002; A. Conklin, ‘The new “ethnology” and “la situation colonial” in inter-war France’, Trench Politics, Culture and Society 20, pp. 29–46;
C. Blanckaert, Les politiques de l’anthropologie, discours et pratiques en Trance (1860–1940), Paris, l’Harmattan, 2001.
In general, see S. F. Moore, Anthropology and Africa: Changing Perspectives on a Changing Scene, Charlottesville, VA, University of Virginia Press, 1994.
See, especially, Robert Delavignette’s personal explanation of the connections between his native Burgundy, the Sudan, and his administrative and intellectual career: R. Delavignette, Soudan-Paris-Bourgogne, Paris, Grasset, 1935.
M. J. Davis, ed., Modem Industry and the African: An Enquiry into the Effect of the Copper Mines of Central Africa upon Native Society and the Work of Christian Missions Made under the Auspices of the Department of Social and Industrial Research of the International Missionary Council, London, Macmillan, 1933. Davis was a specialist on ‘social and industrial research’ with the Missionary Council, and his inquiry included a sociologist, an economist, a historian and mission-based educators. They spent July-December 1932 in Alrica.
A. Richards, Land, Labour and Diet in Northern Rhodesia: An Economic Study of the Bemba Tribe, London, Oxford University Press for International African Institute, 1961 [1939].
G. Wilson, ‘An essay on the economics of detribalization in Northern Rhodesia’, Rhodes-Livingstone Papers, Livingstone, Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, 1941.
R. Brown, ‘Passages in the life of a white anthropologist: Max Gluckman in Northern Rhodesia’, Journal of African History 20, 1979, pp. 525–554; J. Ferguson, Expectations of Modernity, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press;
W. A. Lewis and M. Gersovitz, eds, Selected Economic Writings of W. Arthur Lewis, New York, NY, New York University Press, 1983.
This paragraph and those which follow are based on F. Cooper, Decolonization and African Society: The Labour Question in Trench and British Africa, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
On the ideological need to emphasize planning, cf. Ernest Bevin (Foreign Secretary), Memorandum, 4 October 1947, PM/47/139, PREM 8/456, PRO. On the difficulties of the Colonial Office in coming to grips with the problems of economic development during and immediately alter the war, see Cooper, Decolonization, 1996, pp. 111–124, 202–216.
See also J. M. Lee and M. Petter, ‘The Colonial Office, war and development policy: Organization and the planning of a metropolitan initiative, 1939–1945, Commonwealth Papers 22, London, Maurice Temple Smith, 1982.
Even il the Vichy development plan was stillborn, the debate about it was interesting, as the ministry in Vichy called for the unrestrained development of African resources, with no attention to the situation of Africans, whereas the Government General in Dakar warned Vichy that use of manpower was already close to what indigenous communities could tolerate and there was a danger of destroying peasant production altogether. Marseille’s argument that the Vichy plan represented a more radical break from the pacte colonial than either the Popular Front or the Free French plans is valid only at the level of Vichy’s fantasy. In practice, Vichy’s development effort did little other than increase the brutality of forced labour. See Marseille, Empire colonial, 1984;
Cooper, Decolonization, 1996, chapter 4.
Transcripts of Brazzaville debates on questions linked to development may be found, in Séance des 2–3 lévrier 1944, Rapport de la Commission de l’Économie Impériale, séance du 1er lévrier 1944, AP 2295/2, Archives d’Outre-Mer, Aix-en-Provence (AOM); Rôle et place des Européens dans la colonisation, 20 janvier 1944, and, Direction Générale des Affaires Politiques, Administratives et Sociales, Programme générale de la Conférence de Brazzaville, 28 décembre 1943, AP 2201/7, AOM, Mahé, Rapport sur l’industrialisation des Colonies, transcript of séance du 7 février 1944, AE 101/5, AOM; La conférence africaine française. Brazzaville, 30 January-3 February 1944, Brazzaville, Éditions du Baobab, 1944, 60–61. See also Cotte, La politique économique, 1981, pp. 58–63.
This was especially true of Governor General Félix Éboué, one of the convenors of the conference, who kept insisting on the limits of what could be expected from natives, so much so that another official had to remind the conference attendees that ‘the purpose of our colonization is to civilize’. See Eboué’s remarks on the session of 2 February 1944 and those of Governor Sailer on 3 February, both in AE 101/5, as well as Eboué’s earlier explanation of his views from his circular of 8 November 1941, later published as F. Éboué, La nouvelle politique indigène pour l’Afrique Équatoriale Française, Paris, Office Français d’Édition, 1941.
The idea of Africans as essentially peasants figured not only among progressive administrators — such as Delavignette or Labouret, or the more paternalist Éboué — but also with Vichy’s Gouverneur Général, Pierre Boisson. See P. Boisson, Contribution à l’œuvre africaine, Rufisque, Imprimerie du Haut Commissariat de l’Afrique Française, 1942.
Cooper, ‘Conditions analogous to slavery: imperialism and free labor ideology in Africa’, in Cooper, F., Holt, T., Scott, R., eds, Beyond Slavery: Explorations of Race, Labor, and Citizenship in Postemancipation Societies, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 2000, pp. 134–148; id., ‘The senegalese general strike of 1946 and the labor question in post-war French Africa’, Revue Canadienne d’Études Africaines 24, 1990, pp. 165–215.
Here are some examples of the goals cited by the inspectors: ‘cause labour stabilization’, ‘facilitate better labour performance’, ‘improve family stability’, ‘gradually [move towards] a more European-style life’, ‘give the African worker a decent material life’. AOF, Inspection du Travail, Rapports Annuels, 1946, 1947, 1948. For a detailed analysis of the Inspectors’ discourse, see F. Cooper, Decolonization, chapters 5 and 7.
AOF, Inspection du Travail, Rapport Annuel, 1951; Sénégal, Rapport Économique, 1947; Gouverneur Général, Bernard Cornut-Gentille, Mémoire sur l’exécution du plan d’équipement en Afrique Équatoriale Française pendant les exercices 1947–1948 et 1948–1949, Brazzaville, Imprimerie Officielle; M. Moreau, à la Conférence d’Études des Plans, 29 November 1950, Compte rendu, AE 169, AOM; ‘Observations et conclusions personnelles du Gouverneur Roland Pré, Président de la Commission d’Étude et de Coordination des Plans de Modernisation et d’Équipement des Territoires d’Outre-Me’, May 1954, typescript, AOM.
Ibid, chapter. 8, and for more detail on the Kenyan case, F. Cooper, On the African Waterfront: Urban Disorder and the Transformation of Work in Colonial Mombasa, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1987.
Lisa Lindsay, in a study of Yoruba families during the period in which work on the Nigerian railways was being transformed by the state, shows that workers used their gains to sustain a system of family labour and kinship quite different from what the administration had in mind. L. Lindsay, Working with Gender: Men, Women, and Wage Labor in Southwest Nigeria, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann, 2003.
On the politicizing and depoliticizing tendencies in the debates about development, see Cooper and Packard, International Development, 1997.
For an interesting example of an African political party accepting the notion of development and then using it to assert the need for African contr of over its implementation, see van Beusekom’s discussion of the US-RDA in the French Soudan, in Van Beusekom, Negotiating Development, 2002, pp. 171–172.
J. Lonsdale and B. Berman, Unhappy Valley: Conflict in Kenya and Africa, vol. 2: Violence and Ethnicity, London, James Currey 1992;
T. Kanogo, Squatters and the Roots of Mau Mau, 1905–1963, London, James Currey, 1987;
D. Throup, Economic and Social Origins of Mau Mau, 1945–1953, London, James Currey, 1987.
The British government’s negative cost-benefit analysis of its African colonies may be found in a series of Cabinet documents from 1957, in CAB 134/1555 and CAB 134/1556, PRO. A related, but public, assessment in the French case, became known as cartierisme, after ‘En France Noire avec Raymond Cartier’, Paris Match, 11 August and 1 September 1956. See also Cooper, Decolonization, 1996, chapter 10;
Marseille, Empire Colonial, 1984.
D. C. Tipps, ‘Modernization theory and the comparative study of societies: A critical perspective’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 15, 1973, pp. 199–226.
Some of the earliest studies of urban situations were notable for the information they provided, but did not shape the field of anthropology as did the later work of Georges Balandier or Clyde Mitchell (cf. below). Cf., for example, E. Hellmann, Rooiyard: A Sociological Survey of an Urban Native Slum Yard, Rhodes-Livingstone Papers 13, Cape Town, Oxford University Press, 1948;
S. van der Horst, Native Labour in South Africa, London, Cass, 1971 [1942];
I. Schapera, Migrant Labour and Tribal Life: A Study of Conditions in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, London, Oxford University Press, 1947;
M. Grévisse, Le centre extra-coutumier d’Élisabethville, Bruxelles, CEPSI, 1951;
A. Doucy and P. Feldheim, Problèmes du travail et politique sociale au Congo Belge, Bruxelles, Librairie Encyclopédique, 1952;
J. Guilbot, Petite étude sur la main-d’œuvre à Douala, Yaoundé, Imprimerie du Gouvernment, memorandum du Centre IFAN Cameroun, 1947.
W. F. Moore, Industrialization and Labor: Social Aspects of Economic Development, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press for The Institute of World Affairs, 1951, pp. 3, 6, 48, 188, 192–198.
C. Kerr, J. T. Dunlop, F. Harbison, and C. A. Myers, Industrialism and Industrial Man, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1960, pp. 187–192;
C. Kerr, ‘Changing social structures’, in W. E. Moore and A. S. Feldman, eds, Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas, New York, NY, Social Science Research Council, 1960, pp. 348–349, 350, 351, 357, 359.
D. Lerner, ‘Modernization: Social aspects’, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York, NY, Crowell Collier, 10, pp. 386–394; T. Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies, New York, NY, Free Press 1960;
T. Parsons, ‘Evolutionary universals in society’, American Sociological Review 29, 1964, pp. 339–357.
Kerr, ‘Social structures’, 1960, pp. 348–349.
W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.
For the place of modernization theory within American politics and foreign policy, see M. E. Latham, Modernization as Ideology: American Social Science and ‘Nation Building’ in the Kennedy Era, Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 2000. Robert Vitalis argues that American internationalism drew on the notion of ‘race development’ among certain scholars that dates to the pre-First World War era and which was turned into a critical look at European colonies in the 1930s.
R. Vitalis, ‘International studies in America’, Items, 2002, pp. 3–4, 12–16.
W. Goldschmidt, ‘Africa in the twentieth century’, in W. Goldschmidt, ed., The United States and Africa, New York, The American Assembly, 1958, p. 9; Emerson, ‘The character of American interests in Africa’, in Goldschmidt, op. cit, 1–231958, 15; American Assembly, ‘Final report of the thirteenth American Assembly’, in Goldschmidt, op. cit., pp. 241–244. The report reflects the general consensus of those attending, and the book also contains papers by the leading political scientists, economists, and anthropologists then working on Africa.
See Tipps, ‘Modernization theory’, 1973.
For an example of a political scientist’s critique of the modernizers’ version of African political development, see A. Zolberg, Creating Political Order: The Party-States of West Africa, Chicago, IL, Rand-McNally, 1966.
P. H. Rosenstein-Rodan, ‘Problems of industrialisation of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe’, The Economic Journal, 53, 1943, pp. 202–211.
For another example of the tentative demarcation of a domain of inquiry into underdeveloped economies, see H. W. Singer, ‘Economic progress in underdeveloped countries’, Social Research, 16, 1949, pp. 1–11.
An historical overview may be found in H. W. Arndt, Economic Development: the History of an Idea, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1987.
W. A. Lewis, ‘Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour’, The Manchester School, 22 1954, pp. 139–191. Lewis later wrote that his early interest was in industrial economics and he only became systematically interested in development in 1950. Then and later he was also interested in world economic history. Autobiography on website of Nobel Museum [www.nobel.se/economics/laureates/1979/lewis-autobio.html]. See Robert Tignor, W. Arthur Lewis and the Birth of Development Economics, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2006.
W. A. Lewis, ‘A policy for colonial agriculture’, in W. A. Lewis, M. Scott, M. Wright and C. Legum, Attitude to Africa, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1951, pp. 71–73.
See for example, W. A. Lewis, Labour in the West Indies, London, Fabian Society, 1939.
W. A. Lewis, ‘The economic development of Africa’, in C. W. Stillman, ed., Africa in the Modern World, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1955, pp. 97–122.
W. A. Lewis, Industrialisation and the Gold Coast, Accra, Government Printer, 1953. Lewis’s experience in Ghana led him to write a book severely critical of African political leaders, especially for anti-democratic tendencies that emerged soon after independence. However, he remained committed to the opportunity for young Africans to do better than their elders, and he retained — unlike others who became disillusioned with Africa’s economic progress — his beliefs that sound policies of economic development could improve people’s lives in ways that a free market could not. From his days as a student until the end of life, he thought that the actions of powerful men -be they West Indian planters or African authoritarian rulers — could make things worse, but that the actions of thoughtful, knowledgeable people within democratic systems could make things better.
See W. A. Lewis, Politics in West Africa, Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1965; W. A. Lewis, ‘The state of development theory’, American Economic Review, 74, pp. 1–10.
For a collection of influential writings and a full bibliography, see M. Gersovitz, ed., Selected Economic Writings of W. Arthur Lewis, New York, New York University Press, 1983.
For another study by a ‘colonized subject’ that had a formative influence on the social sciences in Africa, see K. A. Busia, Report on a Social Survey of Sekondi-Takoradi, London, Crown Agents for the Colonies, 1950.
See the references in Note 1 for dismissive arguments about development as Western modernization. A more interesting analysis of science and colonialism comes from Gyan Prakash, who brings out different modes of thought among Indian scientists, but he still insists on contrasting them to an apparently singular form of ‘Western’ reason. G. Prakash, Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press 1999.
Economic Commission for Latin America, Economic Survey of Latin America 1949, New York, United Nations, 1951.
For examples of the vitality of development economics in the 1950s, see A. N. Agarwala and S. P. Singh, The Economics of Underdevelopment: A Series of Articles and Papers, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1958.
See also Arndt, Economic development, 1987.
L. J. Lebret, Dynamique concrète du développement, Paris, Éditions Ouvrières, 1956.
For other points of view among French economists and demographers at the time, see A. Sauvy, ‘Introduction à l’étude des pays sous-développés’, Population, 6, 4, 1951, pp. 601–608;
F. Perroux, Programmation régionale de théorie économique, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1960.
See also M. Diouf, ‘Senegalese development: From mass mobilization to technocratic elitism’, in F. Cooper and R. Packard, eds, International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays in the History and Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1997, pp. 291–319.
One could compare, for example, the neoliberal position of the Indian economist Deepak Lai with that of the defender of a socially focused notion of development, the Indian economist Amartya Sen, and with that of the Egyptian critic of the world capitalist system Samir Amin. The divergences of approach are a theme of Cooper and Packard, International Development, 1997.
UNESCO, Social Implications of Industrialization and Urbanization in Africa South of the Sahara, Paris, UNESCO, 1956.
A. Diop, ‘De l’expansion du travail’, Présence Africaine, 13, 1952, pp. 7–17. Among other articles in this issue, one should note G. Balandier, ‘Urbanism in west and central Africa: The scope and aims of research’, pp. 297–315; K. B. Gnasounou Ponoukoun, ‘La vie d’un militant syndicaliste’, pp. 355–358; P. Naville, ‘Note sur le syndicalisme en Afrique Noire’, pp. 359–367; H. Labouret, ‘Sur la main-d’œuvre autochtone’, pp. 124–136; J. C. Pauvert, ‘La notion de travail en Afrique Noire’, pp. 92–107; P. Mercier, ‘Travail et service public dans l’ancien Dahomey’, pp. 84–91; M. Leiris, ‘L’expression de l’idée de travail dans une langue d’initiés soudanais’, pp. 69–83; A. S. Tidjani, ‘L’Africain face au problème du travail’, p. 108;
D. Palme, ‘La femme africaine au travail, Présence Africaine’, 13, 1952, pp. 116–123.
G. Balandier, ‘Le travailleur africain dans les “Brazzaville noires”,’ Présence Africaine, 13, 1956, pp. 315–330.
P. Mercier, ‘Aspects de la société africaine dans l’agglomération dakaroise: Groupes familiaux et unités de voisinage’, Études Sénégalaises, 5, 1954, pp. 11–40;
P. Mercier, ‘La vie politique dans les centres urbaine du Sénégal: Étude d’une période de transition’, Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 27, 1959, 55–84. For other examples of sociological inquiry, see G. Savonnet, ‘La ville de Thiès: Étude de géographie urbaine’, Études Sénégalaises, 6, 1955; Y. Mersaider, ‘Budgets familiaux africains: Étude chez 136 familles de salariés dans trois centres urbains du Sénégal’, Études Sénégalaises, 7, 1957.
G. Balandier, Histoire des autres, Paris, Stock, 1977, p. 52; G. Balandier, ‘De l’Afrique à la surmodernité: Un parcours d’anthropologue, Entretien avec Georges Balandier’, Le Débat, 118, p. 52. Marcel Griaule’s large œuvre includes Masques Dogon, Paris, Institut d’Ethnologie, 1938, and Dieu d’eau: Entretiens avec Ogotemmêli, Paris, Éditions du Chêne, 1948.
G. Balandier, ‘La situation coloniale: Approche théorique’, Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 11, 1951, pp. 44–79.
Balandier’s focus on the urbanization problematic is already clear in his article ‘Le développement industriel de la prolétarisation en Afrique Noire’, L’Afrique et l’Asie, 20, 1952, 45–53. Evident as well is his insistence that one should not assume that Africa urbanization and industrialization would follow a European trajectory but had to be studied on its own terms: ‘[I]l reste difficile d’approcher les problèmes du travail africain avec nos critères européens. Il laut insister sur la nécessité absolue de les étudier (véritablement) en fonction des particularités bio-psychologiques, sociales et culturelles …’ (p. 53).
See also F. Cooper, ‘Decolonizing situations: The rise, fall and rise of colonial studies, 1951–2001’, French Politics, Culture and Society, 20, 2002, pp. 47–76.
G. Balandier, Sociologie des ‘Brazzaville’ noires, Paris, Colin, 1955;
Balandier, ‘Étude interdisciplinaire’ 1958.
G. Balandier, Le Tiers-Monde. Travaux et documents, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1956.
For the pioneering work on the micro-sociological version of the ‘situation’ (as compared to Balandier’s macro-sociological one), see M. Gluckman, Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1958.
J. C. Mitchell, ‘Urbanization, detribalization and stabilization in Southern Africa: A problem of definition and measurement’, in UNESCO, Social Implications, 1956, pp. 693–711;
A. L. Epstein, Politics in an Urban African Community, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1958, pp. 46, 224–240;
M. Gluckman, ‘Anthropological problems arising from the African industrial revolution’, in A. Southall, ed., Social Change in Modern Africa, London, Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 69;
J. C. Mitchell, ‘The Kalela Dance’, Lusaka, Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, Rhodes-Livingstone Papers, 27, 1957.
See also L. Schumaker, Africanizing Anthropology: Fieldwork, Networks, and the Making of Cultural Knowledge in Central Africa, Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 2001.
Ferguson, Expectations, 1999.
See also Lindsay, Working with Gender, 2003
J. Ferguson, ‘Decomposing Modernity: History and Hierarchy after Development,’ in Ania Loomba, Suvir Kaul, Antoinette M. Burton (eds.), Postcolonial Studies and Beyond, Durham, Duke University Press, Durham 2005, pp. 166–181.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Frederick Cooper
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cooper, F. (2015). Development, Modernization, and the Social Sciences in the Era of Decolonization: The Examples of British and French Africa. In: Jerónimo, M.B., Pinto, A.C. (eds) The Ends of European Colonial Empires. Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137394064_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137394064_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-67907-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-39406-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)